Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Creationists, would you please answer a few basic science questions for me?
As I read through the R&S section, I see several "scientific misconceptions" cropping up, and by "scientific misconception" I mean a misconstrual, of scientific facts and/or principles, that's so profound it borders on screaming "two plus two equals chicken".
Not to be mean, but many of these "scientific misconceptions" are coming from the Creationist side of the aisle (which isn't to say Creationists are inherently stupid, but some of them seem to have missed that left turn in Albuquerque). I could honestly see how it would be easy to disbelieve what some Creationists assert about the scientific explanation for various matters, because a lot of it makes no sense. However, much of the time it isn't the scientific explanation which makes no sense, it's just what the person is saying that's nonsense.
I get the feeling at least some of the difference of opinion between Creationists and those of a more secular mindset stems from a misunderstanding of these facts and principles, so I would like to ask those who believe in Creationism to answer a couple of basic questions for me.
I have no intention of belittling or arguing with anyone, and it would be nice if everyone who answers returned the courtesy. I'm simply interested in learning what your understanding of these things is, apart from your value judgments on them. In other words, just the cut and dry facts, and not things like "an obviously stupid and total lie started by the Devil to lead man away from God". Right now I'm not looking for opinions or value judgments on the validity of what's being put forth by the scientific community, just what you think they're asserting.
Bearing that in mind:
What does the Theory of Evolution state, basically?
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics address?
What is entropy?
What is carbon dating, and what is it used for?
I think that's enough to start with. Like I said, I won't be using the question to belittle or argue with anyone. I'd just like to know, from Creationists, what your understanding of these things is.
Okay, I suppose before I end this Q&A, I should say a couple of things. First up, since more than one person has said something to the effect of "when are you going to grade me", that wasn't my intent. I will pick a best answer simply because one must be picked, but I'm not interested in telling anyone they've failed.
The Laws of Thermodynamics deal with heat. The first law adresses the conservation of energy, and basically states the increase of internal energy in a system is equal to the amount of heat added to the system minus the amount of heat the system loses to either work or the outside environment.
The second law addresses the transfer and loss of energy, and basically says in systems which are not in equilibrium with their surroundings, entropy will tend to increase over time until they are in equilibrium with their surroundings.
As it relates to thermodynamics, entropy essentially refers to the fact systems "waste" work energy to heat loss.
Let's see if I can explain radiometric dating succinctly.
As a matter of course, stable atoms have the same number of protons and neutrons. However, some atoms end up with a greater number of neutrons than protons, which results in an element with a different atomic mass than the "normal" atoms of any given element have. These atoms shed energy from their atomic nuclei and decay into more stable atoms.
This process may include several steps, with atoms decaying into various unstable forms along the way. The forms the atoms decay into are called "daughter products".
The rate at which sizable samples decay into these daughter products is predictable, and measure in "half life" (the amount of time it takes half the number of atoms you're looking at to decay into a daughter product).
By measuring the amount of the original isotope in relation to the various daughter products it produces, you can estimate the age of a given sample.
Carbon dating comes into play with the C14 atom, which can be found in predictable amounts in the Earth's atmosphere. As plants undergo photosynthesis, they take in a predictable amount of C14, which gets stored in their tissues. Similarly, any animal which eats those plants will also store C14 in their tissues. While they are alive, organisms continually take in C14, but once they die the amount of C14 in their tissues is fixed, and begins to decay into daughter products.
Thus, once an organism is deceased, we can measure the amount of C14 atoms in a sample against the amount it should have had in it system when it was alive, and tell approximately how old the sample is.
There are several limitations to carbon dating, which scientists have long known about and take into account.
First, C14 can only be used to measure the age of things which accumulate carbon over a predictable amount of time and then stop. In other words, it can only be used on organisms that have died.
Second, the half-life of C14 (about 5,700 years) makes it useless in dating samples older than about sixty-thousand years or so.
Third, there are circumstances where the environment contains less C14 that the atmosphere does, such as the bottom of rivers, lakes, and oceans. Any lifeform which either lives in such an environment, or takes in food from such an environment, will have lower levels of C14 in its tissues, which will make it appear older when compared to lifeforms which get their food from sources exposed to the atmosphere.
Scientists know these limitations, so they do not use carbon dating to date the age of a sample that falls outside the realm of what carbon dating is useful for (so they do not use it to date non-organic material, any organic material over sixty-thousand years old, or any organic material which lives on the bottom of a body of water and/or feeds off organisms that do), because they know the results will be wrong.
And in advance, I am not picking Glenn's answer for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with anything that would make my "neck hairs run and hide".
However, the best reason I can think of not to pick his answer is simply that he did not answer the question I asked.
18 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Off the top of my head:
The theory of evolution states that organisms pass along their genes to their offspring, and those offspring who receive traits that are favorable for their survival tend to live longer to pass on those traits to the next generation. Different traits are developed several ways (I recall mutation, variation and selection, but I may be missing a couple.) Over time, those families of organisms slowly develop into new species of life, better suited to their environments.
The Laws of Thermodynamics address the transfer of heat, and deal with conservation of energy and entropy. Absolute zero is defined by the third law, if I recall correctly.
Entropy is the amount of disorganization in a system. In my science class, we mixed dyes in water and went from a drop of red dye and a drop of yellow dye to a glass of orange water to demonstrate the concept.
Carbon dating is based upon the half-life of the carbon-14 atom, which says that over time (I do not recall the period), 50% of the atoms in a given sample will decay. Thus the more atoms that have decayed, the older the sample.
When do you plan to grade my answers? I confess that physics is not my best subject -- I couldn't ever handle the math. I'm much more interested in Astronomy and Archaeology.
I'm an unabashed Christian. I have a great love for science, but I am concerned about scientists who seem to believe that everything has a naturalistic cause. The foregone conclusion that everything has a naturalist cause is simply bad science! A firm believer in the Big Bang theory, I am surprised at how many people ignore the question of a first cause, the "unmoved mover," that necessary event that set the Universe into motion. Scientific attempts to explain this -- whether through budding Universes or fluctuating quantum energy fields -- only push back the question of a first cause. Logically, something had to set things in motion. Causality demands it.
Science is a great method for exploring the natural world. It is a tool, like a hammer. It is completely the wrong tool to investigate the supernatural.
- 1 decade ago
What does the Theory of Evolution state, basically? Evolution involves change in species over time. I know you may think that many believers think evolution is how an organism came to be but that is not the case.
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics address? Thermodynamics address heat, which cannot be created nor destroyed theory, conversion of heat, energy sources.
What is entropy? Entropy is the order to disorder theory in a closed system.
What is carbon dating, and what is it used for? Carbon dating is detecting how old an object is by using radioactive ions.
I have taken plenty of science courses to understand science and how it works and can I just say that science can only prove things bound by this Earth, by the natural laws. It cannot prove anything that goes outside the definition of science itself.
- BarbaraLv 45 years ago
In organic chemistry you learn about alkanes. In genetics one way you can actually ADD information is via tr_ _spor_ns...Ok it's called a ribosome...and add information to what? I assume your talking about DNA, which is wrong because RNA is what creates a protein. If you mean the copy of DNA, DNA polymerase is your answer. The energy state of an electron is most basically described as its s_ _ l_.. It's called a photon, dumb a ss The part of an animal cell that contains digestive enzymes is a Lysosome. @ poster: You misspelled "buffoons" Darwinism is the same as saying that it is plausible that a living shrimp can come from cheesecake. How reasonable does that sound?
- aznfanaticLv 51 decade ago
I used to be into the whole Creatonist/ID thing, but not anymore. I think that there are kinks in evolution that may or may not be fatal. I don't think it will disprove God, if they finish working it out.
I can try to answer your questions briefly, but i could have just copy pasted from wikipedia. I get pretty good grades in science and math, if you want to take my word for it.
Evolution states that all life originated by one organism, and that species can evolve into distinct new ones.
Thermodynamics are just basic equations useful for calculations, as far as I'm concerned. The origin of all the energy and mass is difficult to answer, with or without religion. It requires some sort of unprovable philosophy to figure out.
Entropy is a measure of disorder, so that we can figure that all equations kind of favor one direction involving the whole universe in a heat death state.
Carbon dating is measuring radioactivity, useful for figuring out what times things were last alive.
I think the problem is that many people subscribe to the naturalist philosophy and try to use evolution to disprove God, so the believers feel they must fight "science" in order to not look bad. There are people everywhere who will just fabricate stuff, and it's a shame that believers are no exception.
Source(s): Protestant - MJFLv 61 decade ago
Hang on there just a second buddy! You're missing the whole point!! The point about believing in creation is not based on any "science" or "evidence" - it's based on voluntary ignorance and a pathological fear of thinking for oneself. For that reason, you're probably not going to get any more than one-lined answers from believers, simply because if they switch on their brains, their whole belief system will crash to the ground around them.
Hardly fair, is it??
Source(s): Atheist - Super AtheistLv 71 decade ago
Well, you rightly identify the fact that it's not stupidity that is the problem, but ignorance. And most importantly, ignorance of what evolution actually is, and what the ToE actually states.
If more people were aware of how blindingly simple, obvious and well-supported evolution is, they might be less noisy about their pet impractical alternatives.
But not only don't they know, it seems that they sometimes work quite hard not to find out. At that point you leave straight ignorance and drift in wilful ignorance (and even invincible ignorance), which really is stupid.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm a Computer Scientist not a biologist or physicist, so I haven't delt with this stuff since High School... so be kind lol
---------------------------
What does the Theory of Evolution state, basically?
---
That life adapts to environmental pressures through the process of natural selection. Organisms which are more fit survive to propagate their kind thus resulting in net change towards a more beneficial structure over time.
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics address?
---
Gee. I know there's at least 2.... heh maybe 3...?? objects in motion tend to stay in motion... objects at rest tend to stay at rest??? I think the 2nd one states that the universe moves from order to disorder (energy is always lost as heat from any interaction)
What is entropy?
-----
When organization falls towards chaos... it's the downhill slope of the universe.
What is carbon dating, and what is it used for?
-----
You look at the rate of decay of the carbon 14 atom I believe, in order to estimate the age of an object, you know how many... um... electrons(or something, not sure)?? It started out with, and from the current number of "whatevers" you can project back, using the assumed rate of decay how old the object is.
Source(s): Somebody better tell me if I passed lol - Bullfrog21Lv 61 decade ago
OK
The actual theory of evolution makes no reference to the Ultimate origin of living things on this Planet it only refers to the similarities of all creatures and the postulated relationships between them.
Entropy is the tendency of all organized energy to become random.
Carbon dating is the measurement of the relative concentration of C14 to C12 and the supposed age of a now dead has been living thing derived from the decay rate of C14.
There are potential problems with this measurement but it is conjecture to explain the gap.
The problem most creationists (serious ones) have with the present scientific hypothesis' is the assumption of a stead state earth without any unexplained changes and the lack of transitional creatures between the major divisions (orders for example)
Evolutionary theory uses punctuated equilibrium to attempt to explain these discrepancies. Ops there goes steady state.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Keep this open. It is way late here, but I will answer after I get some sleep.
Sorry, I lied. I was going yo give a great answer, but there is no way to top iamdenteddisk.
He should get the 10.
